Transcription
The person who called me a liar in a recent video would like to weigh back in. Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. Let's take a look at a video.
The Godmost High Tone tone hips. Dan Mlullen is trying to argue that Lelon is Yahweh's daddy. No, I'm not. In fact, in that previous video, I quite explicitly took an entire minute to explain that I was not arguing that. Take a look.
Before we get too deep into this video, I want to jump in here and make a clarification. The fact that the ancient Greek translation of Genesis 14:22 and the Genesis Apocryphan and the Pashida don't include a reference to the tetra grammaton doesn't in and of itself prove anything about an original distinction between Adoni and Eljon. I am not arguing that the absence of the tetetrogrammaton in Genesis 14:22 means that Adonai was originally a distinct deity from Elon. I'm pointing out this fact in response to the claim that the presence of the tetragrammaton in MT Genesis 14:22 somehow disproves an original distinction between Adoni and Elon. I'm just complicating that argument by pointing out that the presence of the tetetrogrammaton is secondary, that it is likely not original to the text, which only complicates the argument against which I am responding. It does not prove anything in and of itself.
So, this content creator is just choosing to entirely ignore a very conspicuous, clear, and intentional clarification that I made precisely because I got the sense that people were not going to think critically or clearly about what I was arguing in that video. Now, I have argued in print and many times on my channel that it is likely that Adoni and Elon in the earliest periods of Israel's existence were distinct, separate deities and that they were merged probably somewhere around 1,000 B.CE. And I happen to think that that happened when a devote of Adonai exceeded to the throne and decided to consolidate power by merging the two deities, turning two deities into one, which is something that happens, although usually temporarily in ancient West Asia. So, I have made that argument elsewhere. But as I clarified in the previous video, I am not arguing that Genesis 14:22 proves anything about that particular research question. I was just responding to the claim that I was a liar and that Genesis 14:22 has always had the tetragrammaton in it, including in the Septuagent. That's the claim I was responding to. That's the only claim I was responding to. And my concerns that my argument would be misrepresented willfully were obviously correct because this content creator chose to entirely ignore my very clear and conspicuous and intentional clarification.
He's reading from the Codex Vaticanis Genesis 14 and verse 22. And he's explaining how in the Brenton Septuagent they added the word ka riios, which means lord, which is primarily used to substitute for the tetetrogrammaton. And uh, without that being there, it is not saying that Yahweh is llelon. He's saying that it only says llon and he explains that it's ton and then the word for uh, the most high. And this can also be interpreted as Yahweh the most high because ton can be used to substitute the tetetrogrammaton. So he's being misleading. Um, not explaining that it's possible for tantheon to substitute for Yahweh. So I'm not being misleading. You just still don't know what you're talking about.
And let me explain why. At no point did I ever say the Septuagent translators never used the word ho. OS, the God, to render the tetetrogrammaton. What I said is that that's not what's going on in Genesis 14:22. And here's why. Let's look at Genesis 15:6 and 7. The Hebrew is on top. You can see Bad Adoni and Adoni. That's the tetra grammatant. There's no word for God in either of these verses. There's just the divine name. But when you look below at the Greek translation, the Septuagent's rendering of these two passages, they do not render the tetra grammaton, they render ho. In the top, it is in the dative. On the bottom, it is in the nominative. This happens because the septuagent translators tended to use more generic terms for deity rather than the specialized tetra grammaton. And there are a handful of reasons for this. And if you want a wonderful discussion of these developing sensitivities related to the name of God, I would recommend this book by a friend of mine, Anthony Meyer, called Naming God in Early Judaism. However, I digress.
Let's get to Genesis 14:22 where we see in the Hebrew El Adoni, Elon. We have three different designations for God. The L on the very beginning, in the far right, on the right box, that is just a particle that indicates motion towards. But Adoni is the tetetrogrammaton, that's a divine name. Then the middle box has L, which is the Hebrew word for God. And then the left box has elon, which is the Hebrew word for most high. And when you look below the Greek translation of Genesis 14:22, you only see two designations: ton, that's hos in the accusative, and then ton hips, that is elon in the accusative. So whereas on top we have three different designations for God, on the bottom you only have two. And hos in the accusative tone is rendering the middle designation in the Hebrew L. Tone hips is rendering the designation on the left in the Hebrew Elon. What is not being rendered here? The tetra grammaton Adoni. Ton is not rendering Adoni because if it was, then we would need something to render the Hebrew L.
Now let's look at the three other occurrences of the Hebrew phrase llon in the passages leading up to verse 22 in 18:1, 19, and 20. We have llon and ll yon. We have God most high three times. Now in these three passages, this is being put into the mouth of mechisedc. It's saying that melkisedc is a priest of lljon. And then it has melkisedc blessing Abram by Llon. And then it has Melkisedc saying blessed be llon. Now let's look at the translation. All three of them use the phrase. On top, it is in the genative. In the middle, it is in the indative. On the bottom, it is in the nominative. So you have both designations L and Elon being rendered in all three verses. Hos renders L. Hohipstos renders Lion. That's exactly what we have in the Hebrew of Genesis 14:22. What is the only difference between these three occurrences of hotheos hohipstos in 18:1, 19, and 20 and then the occurrence in 22? Well, in the Hebrew, you have the tetetrogrammaton added. In the Greek, the translation is identical across all four verses. But in the Hebrew in verse 22, you have the addition of the tetetrogrammaton. Why? Because now it's Abram speaking, not Melkisedc. And so for the editor of the Hebrew of this, they wanted to throw in Adonai to identify Llon, Godmost High, as Adonai because now it's in Abraham's mouth and Abraham is a devotey of Adonai. So that is the rationale for the addition, the interpolation of the divine name. And as you can see across all four renderings of Lolon in the Septuagent, it's all the same. So there is no case to make that hos in Genesis 14:22 in the Greek is rendering the tetra grammaton.
But wait, there's more because we can look at other languages and we can see that the tetetrogrammaton is absent from other languages as well. For instance, here is the manuscript of the Genesis Apocryphan from Kuman, and I have underlined the quotation of Genesis 14:22. Now, this is Aramaic. This is not Greek. This is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic, but it's very close. And if you look, the bottom line on the right, I lift up my hand to ll yon, Lord of heaven and earth. The tetetrogrammaton is not there. And we can look at the Genesis Apocryphan, the critical edition and commentary by Joseph Fitzmeer from 2004. Here is a transcription of that manuscript, if you don't believe me. And here is a translation: Then Abram answered the king of Sodom, I raise my hand this day to God most high, Lord of heaven and earth.
We can also go and look at the Pashida, the Syriak version of the Old Testament, which is a version of Aramaic. And here you have verse 22 in Genesis 14. And on the bottom, you see the exact same Aramaic: I raise my hand to God most high, Lord of heaven and earth. There's no tetra grammaton.
Now, critical scholars are in widespread agreement when we look at all of the textual data and we consider the principles of textual criticism. Critical scholars are in widespread agreement that the earliest recoverable version of the Hebrew of Genesis 14:22 did not have the tetetrogrammaton in there. It is probably a secondary addition, an interpolation that is intended to identify Adonai with Elon. Now again, as I said in my previous video, this is not making the case that Genesis 14:22 proves anything regarding an original distinction between Adonai and Elon. We're going to get to that in the next portion.
And also, uh, if you just read it in context, like in uh, Genesis 14 and verse 22, it explains that uh, the most high God, lion, is the creator of the heavens and the earth. And if you read Exodus 20:1 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it explains that Yahweh is the creator of the heavens and the earth. So the context of Torah is that Yahweh is Ellelon. And if you don't want to believe that um, in Genesis 14:22, that is saying Yahweh is the most high, um, you don't have to believe that because the context, and if you just apply Exodus 20:11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it explains that Yahweh is the most high God. This is a reference that explains that Exodus 20:1 in the Dead Sea Scrolls says, for in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth. Right? So Yahweh is the creator of the heavens and the earth.
So this only further demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about because you very clearly have no clue what I have been arguing for well over a decade, not only on social media but also in print. You can look in my open access monograph, Adonai's Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach, for a discussion of the early distinction of Adonai and El/Lon. You can look at my more recent trade book, The Bible Says So, for a more accessible discussion of the evidence that leads scholars to conclude that there was probably an original distinction between Adonai and Elon. You are very clearly not aware that my argument has Exodus 20 coming after the conflation of Adoni and Eljon, which I place at about 1,000 BCE, long before the composition of virtually every last verse of the Hebrew Bible. So pretty much every author who wrote anything that went into the Hebrew Bible thought of Adonai as identified with L/on. There are only a couple of passages that vestigially preserve awareness of this original distinction.
Now, you point to the fact that Adonai is said to be the creator of the heavens and the earth in Exodus 20. And this manifests another lack of awareness of what I have been arguing for well over a decade in print and on social media, because I have presented multiple times an argument for this phrase that we find in Genesis 14:1, 19, and 22, kona, which is usually translated possessor or lord or creator of heaven and earth, because Exodus 20 does not use that phrase. It uses the verbal root assa. When that phrase kones arit, creator, possessor, lord of heaven and earth, occurs, it only occurs in association with the divine name L. And it actually occurs in Ugaritic. It occurs in Hittite. It occurs in numerous places outside the Bible and outside the land of Israel, always in reference to L. In the Bible, when Adoniah is described as the one who is the creator of heaven and earth, it does not use the participle ka, it does not use the verbal root kana. It uses the verbal root assa to do or to make. So when it is adonai who's described as the creator of heaven and earth, it's oay shamits. And I have a paper where I discuss the significance of this difference and what this means to the likely original distinction of Adoni and Lolon. And you clearly are not aware of that research. And you're clearly not aware that you have to presuppose univocality in order for Exodus 20 to have any relevance whatsoever to the conceptualization of deity that is going on in Genesis 14:22.
However, and for the third time, I am not arguing that the absence of the tetetrogrammaton from Genesis 14:22 necessarily has anything at all to do with the original distinction of Adoni and L/Lon. As I have pointed out, I am not saying that the absence of the tetragramon in Genesis 14 proves or is even evidence for the original distinction of Adonai and L/on. I'm just responding to the claim that detached grammaton was actually there all along.
This Google AI overview explains that ton can be used to refer to Yahweh. And if you keep reading, it explains that Kyrios is like the primary substitute, but ton can also be used. And it does say in the Septuagent that the most high made the heavens and the earth. Okay, so the creator is Yahweh, the most high God. And as I have already demonstrated, this does not support the notion that LXX Genesis 14:22 manifests awareness of or the presence of the tetra grammaton. It simply does not. And this content creator again doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.
And the fit for this video has been The Amazing Spider-Man.